- Download my books for free
New World War: Revolutionary Methods for Political Control
Dedication & Thanks
Volume I: Current Political Situation
- Revolution in Warfare
- The Other World
- Dictatorship Creation
- The Groups Facilitating the Revolution
- Their Goal is Neo-Feudalism
- Volume I Commentary
Volume II: The New War
- The New War
- The New Enemy
- Initiatives to Remove Civil Liberties
- The Investigation
- Surveillance Technology and Methods
- Volume II Commentary
Volume III: Weapons of The New War
- Introduction to Nonlethal Weapons
- Psychological Operations
- Introduction to Directed-Energy Weapons
- High-Powered Microwaves
- High-Powered Lasers
- Sonic Weapons
- Computer Network Operations
- Microwave Hearing
- Silent Subliminals
- Use of Citizen Informants
- Chemical and Biological
- Weather Warfare
- Miscellaneous Weapons and Tactics
- Volume III Commentary
Volume IV: The Coverup
- Volume IV Introduction
- Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders
- Control of the Medical Industry
- Another Look at Schizophrenia
- Political Considerations
- Punitive Psychiatry in Communist Russia
- Coverup Initiatives
- Volume IV Commentary
- A Brief History of PsyOp
- Small-Scale Wars
- Nongovernmental Organizations
- Human-Computer Intelligence Network
- Electronic Tyranny
- Other Devices Connected to the GIG
- My Experience
Toffler’s Third Wave theory is a revolutionary premise which includes globalization, or what some refer to as the New World Order. As this revolution occurs, many negative events will increasingly occur, he tells us, including upheavals, turbulence, overthrows, and widespread violence.
These are not random events but are all connected to this global revolution. And, these perils offer fascinating new potentials, we’re told. According to him, we won’t totally destroy ourselves. This global civilization will be a positive alternative to what we had. It won’t quite be a utopia. Instead it will be a realistic, attainable, practical utopia, or what he calls a practopia. In the end it will be a better world.
H.G. Wells too agreed with this group’s plan for global domination. He rationalized that because humankind is facing turbulent forces that will destroy it, fundamental changes in the world system must be made. Wells thought that this global system could abolish poverty, slavery, and despair. Professor Quigley also agreed with the group’s overall idea that a single world government would promote peace and prosperity.
On the surface, this appears to make sense. Few of us can argue with initiatives to advance the human race. After all, who doesn’t want improvement? Who doesn’t want peace? This movement is made possible using an ideology that associates the restructuring of the governmental systems of the various countries with ideas such as improvement, peace, technology, and evolution. These ideas can be expressed using the single term, advancement.
Globalism, mentions Toffler, is more than an ideology that serves the interests of a small group. Just as nationalism represented an entire nation, globalism represents the entire planet. It is an evolutionary necessity. It is a step toward “cosmic consciousness,” which, he says includes making radical changes to the US Constitution.
More specifically, the ideological message contained in this movement is that in order for a country to advance, its governing structure must be changed, its constitution must be altered, and it must be merged into a global government.
In the US, this means that the Constitution needs to be updated in order for our society to improve. The basic message is that it is old, outdated, and no longer necessary. This idea is not completely irrational at a glance because things do change. Technology improves. Our understanding of events sharpens. Therefore, things do need to be updated.
However, changes that remove crucial safety measures that guarantee basic human rights are not an improvement. As an example, the creators of the US Constitution had an understanding of a historical pattern of tyrants repressing populations. This document was created as a safety measure to prevent a destructive historical norm from happening. Some things, regardless of how old they are, should never be altered, particularly when they are guidelines which prevent tyranny.
These individuals recognized that whenever governmental power was consolidated, tyranny always resulted. So, the Constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government by separating it into three branches. It was also designed to prevent the growth of the federal government.
The US Constitution cannot be properly understood without the Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln said it was the principles through which the US Constitution should be interpreted. The Declaration states that governments are constructed to serve the people, and secure their unalienable rights, such as freedom and the pursuit of happiness. A government has only the power that people give it.
The basic reason for the American colonists’ decision to separate from Britain was that a series of intolerable acts were imposed by the British Crown against them. For years the Americans pursued peaceful resolutions with the crown but received retaliation instead of discussion. Each attempt by the early Americans to resolve the matters peacefully only brought more injury.
In addition to trying to resolve the matters they sought to inform the people of England of what was occurring, but they were mostly ignored. So they decided to leave a record of what happened so that future generations would know why they separated. The record is known as the Declaration of Independence. It described how the king of England engaged in a series of injurious acts to establish a tyranny over the states. They included:
- Holding legislative meetings in far-off places in order to fatigue people into compliance.
- Sending armed troops to live among the people and murder them.
- Trade sanctions.
- Forcing people to be brought to England to face false charges with no trial by jury.
- Controlling and ravaging the coasts, and burning towns.
- Sending large armies of mercenaries to commit murder, and other acts.
“The history of the present King of Great Britain” states the Declaration “is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States.” It continued, “We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America … do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown.”
So, the US Constitution was created to prevent the government from violating a person’s rights contained in the Bill of Rights, and to limit the size of the government. It was basically a contract. The First Amendment allows people to peacefully hold the government accountable to it by petitioning it for its violations.
According to the Declaration, when a government becomes destructive and no longer serves them, when it violates the contract, it is the duty of the people to change it. If their petitions for redress are ignored, it is their duty to abolish it.
Therefore, the technique of linking the advancement of our civilization with the removal of a critical safety measure that guarantees basic human rights is a blatant act of deception. Those who are able to see this global movement in its true form (a fake democracy) are labeled resisters, nonstate actors, or nationalists, who are standing in the way of progress.
According to Brzezinski, as this process occurs, certain ideologies must be adopted by people in order for conflict to be avoided. To minimize the significance of the Constitution, Brzezinski mentioned: “There is no doubt that America emits a compelling and appealing message of liberty to the world. However, much of the message is procedure, with its emphasis on a constitutional process that guarantees human rights and freedom of choice.”
Brzezinski mentioned how a national constitutional convention was necessary in order examine the relevance of the existing contract. The convention would also develop methods to streamline (consolidate) the administrative structure of the US Government. Anytime a consolidation such as this occurs it results in tyranny.
“In the past,” explained Brzezinski, “the division of power has traditionally caused programs of inefficiency, poor coordination, and dispersal of authority, but today the new communications and computation techniques make possible both increased authority at the lower levels and almost instant national coordination.”
Once again, these recommendations are done under the guise of making things more efficient, making improvements, etc. In the context of the role of agencies of the federal government, the RAND Corporation advocated a similar consolidation process in 2003, stating, “divided authority could be a formula for bureaucratic gridlock and inaction, with many having the right to say ‘no,’ but no element strong enough to see a program proposal through to approval and successful execution.”
Toffler says the US Constitution was a magnificent achievement for the system of government that was in place at that time. However, it is now obsolete and must be radically changed. A whole new system of government must replace it.
He declared: “That piece of paper, with the Bill of Rights ... is increasingly obsolete ... and hence oppressive [and] dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented … capable of making intelligent, democratic decisions necessary for our survival in a new world.”
That’s correct, Mr. Toffler just referred to the Bill of Rights as dangerous. According to Toffler, the primary enemies of this new civilization are those who are resisting globalization. These individuals and groups are believed to be an obstacle to human evolution. The basic struggle taking place during globalization is what Toffler refers to as the super struggle, which is between those who are holding on to certain ideologies (freedom) and those who are advancing the New World Order (neo-feudalism).
Wells similarly wrote that if constitutions and leaders of countries could be dealt with they would not be attacked. He specifically mentioned that it would be more difficult to merge America into this global system because its government was legally bound to a constitution. The primary enemies to this movement, he said, would be those who valued local independence. Wells mentioned that these individuals would be destroyed using scientific methods.
“The forces of nationalism,” announced the US Army War College in its April of 2002 article Information Operations and Asymmetric Warfare…Are We Ready?, are interfering with “world unification.” These current and future threats, they explained, will be identified and dealt with using electronic warfare (EW).
According to Dr. John B. Alexander, conspiracy theorists believe that the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, and Council on Foreign Relations are attempting to take away their individual freedom, and that these think tanks are controlling the development and use of NLW to create a docile society under their rule. He informs us that these beliefs are unfounded.
In his 1977 book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski mentioned that when it is complete, this global empire would be based on the structure of earlier empires, which includes a hierarchy of vassals, tributaries, protectorates, and colonies.
A vassal is a term related to a system of feudalism that existed in Medieval Europe. A vassal was a feudal tenant under the protectorate of a feudal lord. Closely related terms include serf, peasant, and slave. In part 1A, The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition defines a serf as “a member of the lowest feudal class...” and “a person in bondage or servitude” in part 3. It explains a vassal as a “slave” in part 2A.
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition states in part 1A of its definition that a serf is: “A member of a servile feudal class bound to the land and subject to the will of its owner.”
The Oxford English Dictionary, Sixth Edition, describes a serf as “a person in a condition of servitude or modified slavery,” and defines it in part 1 as a “slave.” Under feudalism vassals were born into a permanent system of bondage. “To some degree,” Brzezinski elaborates, “[that] terminology is not altogether inappropriate.”
Professor Quigley sums up this consolidation process as: “Nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert.”
There is no question that individual members of the US Congress are serving their constituents. However, the evidence presented here, which will be expanded upon in the next volume, suggests that the US Congress as a whole has been completely subverted. Congress appears to be actively helping these wealthy interests establish their global dictatorship legally.
Congressmen are handled by agents of corporations called lobbyists. Corporations assign at least two lobbyists for each member of congress. The lobbyists provide these elected officials with documentation in order to persuade them to favor legislation which benefits the sponsoring organization, which may be a special interest group, corporation, or a foreign government.
There are also think tanks which provide policy reports to influence the views of congress. These lobbyists have access to vast amounts of funds and research results to support their views on any piece of legislation.
The pharmaceutical industry has the largest number of lobbyists in Washington, with two for every member of congress. In many cases these corporate agents are actually writing the laws and regulations which US citizens must follow.
In the late 1960s there were less than 70 lobbyists in Washington. By the mid 1980s there were about 8 thousand, some representing foreign governments. Now there are over 30 thousand, outnumbering congressmen, senators, and their staffs 2 to 1.
The influence lobbyists have on congress far exceeds that of the individual citizen. From 1998 to 2004 these corporate agents spent over $12 billion lobbying congress. In 2004 alone, corporations and national organizations spent about 5.5 million per day lobbying congress and other federal agencies.
Congressmen are influenced in a number of ways, including campaign contributions and legal bribes in the form of gifts. Millions of lobbying money is spent taking these elected officials on vacations, sporting events, shopping sprees, tours, etc. Some of these take place under the guise of “fact finding” ventures.
“Representatives in the House and Senate,” explained Lou Dobbs in his book, War On The Middle Class, “look upon those ‘gifts’ not as bribes to do the bidding of their corporate ... masters, but rather as perks appropriate to their lofty positions of power.”
Corporations also influence congress by using their lobbyists to contribute to the political campaigns of these politicians to help them get reelected. Some of this is done through political action committees (PACs). PACs are organizations created or promoted by elected officials, and serve as support organizations for fund raising, media ads, and publicizing certain views of a particular issue. Although lobbyists have restrictions on how much money they can give to members of congress, PACs allows them to circumvent these restrictions.
The money that these elected officials receive via PACs is given under the condition that they will continue to pass laws that are favorable to the sponsoring interests. Although this activity is supposed to be monitored, the House Ethics Committee is ineffective. Because members of Congress are influenced by corporations, it is relatively simple for them to be used to further these corporate objectives. The following initiatives by Congress serve this global political agenda:
- The proposal of a thought-based law known as the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), introduced by Representative Jane Harman on April 19 of 2007, passed in the House 404 to 6 on October 23 2007.
- As part of an effort to limit free speech on the internet, the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, led by Senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins, released the May 8, 2008 report Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat, which mentions that extremists are using the internet to recruit followers into a global terrorist movement.
- On April 24, 1996 the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill of 1995 (S. 390/H.R. 896), that was introduced after the public had been traumatized by the Oklahoma City Bombing, became law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which was signed by President Clinton. It authorized an increase in the targeting of American citizens. Tremendous support was given to the bill in Senate and House which voted in favor of it 98 and 293, respectively.
- Congress passed the USA Patriot Act with an overwhelming majority of 98 votes in the Senate and 357 in the House. This ended the Bill of Rights. Although the original bill which they approved was switched in the early morning hours with a different one, they still voted for it. Regardless, in summer of 2005 Congress again voted in favor (251 in the house and 89 in the senate) not only to extend the act, but to broaden its scope and make most of it permanent. This time they were completely aware of its blatant constitutional violations.
- The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibited both the National Guard and regular military from working with local or federal police to target the US population, was abolished by the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of October 17, 2007. It also allows for militarized police roundups of protesters, “potential terrorists” and “undesirables.” It allows the president to put US troops in any city for to suppress public disorder. The Act was passed by a unanimous vote in the Senate and 396 in the House.
- The Military Commission Act of 2006, which basically abolishes habeas corpus, was passed by congress with an approval of 65 in the Senate and 250 in the House. All that is necessary for any US citizen to be secretly imprisoned indefinitely with no trial is for the president to declare them an enemy combatant.
Congressmen are also profiting from the Global War on Terror. 151 of them received a total of at least $15 million in personal income between 2004 and 2006 from defense contractors, through dividends, capital gains, royalties, and interest.
In the early 1990s the US Congress started to become increasingly receptive to nonlethal weapons for domestic use due to the lobbying efforts of the US Global Strategy Council. They worked with the DOD to test and field these weapons through the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996, due to an expansion in military operations other than war.
They continue to support the development of directed-energy weapons with their defense budget authorizations. Congress has funded these new weapons. They are aware that they exist and that some of them are classified. They also know that they’re being used on civilians.
According to Professor Quigley, this group has been able to hide itself quite successfully. The public has not been aware of its impact on world affairs because it is not closely integrated, but instead appears as a series of overlapping inner-core groups that are concealed by formal front organizations, which themselves have no obvious political significance.
As we’ve discovered, these formal front organizations include the Bilderberg group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and other think tanks, as well as intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations, and the various tax-exempt foundations.
These organizations have interlocking memberships. They exist to further the ambitions of the wealthy elite who wish to control the planet. For decades, presidents, congressmen, authors, committees, and highly-decorated military officers have encountered this network in one form or another and were able to perceive its true intention of enslaving people. They have issued us warnings.
Congressman Lawrence P. McDonald wrote in November of 1975: “Money alone is not enough to quench the thirst and lusts of the super-rich. Instead, many of them use their vast wealth, and the influence such riches give them, to achieve even more power.”
He continued: “Power of a magnitude never dreamed of by the tyrants and despots of earlier ages. Power on a worldwide scale. Power over people, not just products.” He warned that the most important issue of our time is the effort by these wealthy elite to create a global government which would combine capitalism and communism. He said that their intentions were incredibly evil.
In the early 1980s resolutions calling for an investigation into the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations were drafted by the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Congressman McDonald, who would have led the investigation, introduced the resolutions into the House of Representatives, but nothing happened. In 1983 Congressman McDonald died during a curious incident involving a Russian missile which blew up the commercial airliner he was on, killing all 269 passengers.
Officials that participated in multiple congressional investigations going back to 1912 stated that a wealthy cabal existed which posed a serious danger to the public, and was capable of using invisible force to carry out anything it deemed necessary.
A global government was its ultimate goal, according to these investigators, who could not complete their studies because the attacks against them were incredible. Presidents such as Jackson, Jefferson, Garfield, and Lincoln were aware that these wealthy elites were relentlessly trying to overthrow the republic. They issued warnings to the people. Garfield and Lincoln were assassinated and Jackson was almost murdered.
In his farewell speech on January 17, 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower cautioned that a combined force consisting of the military and corporations existed. He referred to it as the military-industrial complex. It was capable of influencing every city, state, and office of government.
He announced: “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. … We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”
Even Professor Quigley, who approved of this group’s goal, stated: “No country that values its safety should allow ... a small number of men to wield such power in administration and politics.” He described the idea that this small group was controlling the publication of documents relating to its activities, monopolizing the writing and teaching of history, and shaping public opinion as, terrifying.
In New York City on April 27, 1961, President John F. Kennedy warned of a common danger that was threatening our society in every sphere of human activity. He said that a ruthless mechanism was operating covertly from behind the scenes to establish control of the entire planet. And that although no war had been declared, no greater threat to our society had ever existed.
These enemies to freedom, said Kennedy, use infiltration and subversion. They rely on covert methods of expanding their control. This group accumulated vast material and human resources, including military, diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and political, which it was using to covertly expand around the globe. He referred to it as a massive conspiracy which he intended to expose. Here is an excerpt from his speech:
The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. ... Today no war has been declared—and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion.
Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger” then I can only say that the danger has never been clearer and its presence has never been more immanent.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence—on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice...
It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, and no secret is revealed.